Free Will and Moral Responsibility: Compatibilism, Hard Determinism, and the Consequence Argument

Abstract

This article examines the enduring philosophical problem of free will and moral responsibility by comparing compatibilism, hard determinism, and libertarianism. It focuses on Van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument, which challenges the compatibility of determinism with genuine agency, and then considers major compatibilist responses, including classical accounts, Frankfurt’s hierarchical theory, and Fischer and Ravizza’s reasons-responsiveness model. The discussion also analyzes Frankfurt cases, which question whether moral responsibility requires alternative possibilities, and Strawson’s theory of reactive attitudes, which reframes responsibility within interpersonal moral practices rather than abstract metaphysical conditions. The article concludes that compatibilism remains the dominant position, though it continues to face challenges from manipulation arguments, moral luck, neuroscience, and emerging questions about artificial intelligence and responsibility.